Security Systems News - IESAhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/taxonomy/term/1069
enFire services trump alarm industry at NFPA votehttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/fire-services-trump-alarm-industry-nfpa-vote
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">NFPA motion 72-8 passes, with implications on central stations</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2015-07-16T00:00:00-04:00">07/16/2015</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Spencer Ives</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>CHICAGO—A recent NFPA vote that may result in restriction for central stations on matters of fire alarm monitoring should serve as a wake-up call to the security industry to be more involved with the National Fire Protection Association, according to Kevin Lehan, executive director of the Illinois Electronic Security Association.</p>
<p>At its annual meeting here in Chicago, the NFPA approved motion 72-9, “that reinforced an AHJ’s authority to determine who can and who cannot monitor fire alarms,” Jay Hauhn, executive director for the CSAA, told <em>Security Systems News.</em> Specifically, an AHJ can deny central stations the ability to monitor fire alarms. </p>
<p>NFPAmotion 72-9, which would have removed the section referring to central stations completely, was withdrawn after 72-8 was passed.</p>
<p>Proponents of motion 72-8 were primarily from Chicago fire departments, some of which operate their own monitoring centers. “I would suggest that there is an inappropriate conflict of interest when an AHJ operates their own monitoring center for a fee to constituents, and then said AHJ is the decision making authority able to prohibit other appropriately listed monitoring centers,” Hauhn said.</p>
<p>“We were thrilled to be able to get the numbers out that we did.” Lehan said, pointing out that the vote, being on June 25, happened at the same time as ESX. “We mobilized very well, we just have to inform and entice the rest of the alarm installer community to be active in the NFPA going forward.”</p>
<p>The fact that the meeting was held in Chicago gave proponents and advantage, Hauhn said. “The fact that the meeting was in Chicago gave them a great tactical advantage. It means they were able to have many Chicago-based fire professionals, in full uniform, stand up at that microphone and convince voters sitting in that room that AHJ authority was being diminished.”</p>
<p>Lehan said some aspects of the meeting were beneficial for the alarm industry. “Previously the language said ‘alternate location approved by the authority having jurisdiction.’ Now the language specifically says ‘listed central supervising station.’” This language helps by specifically naming central stations as an option, Lehan said, while the AHJ still controls whether they are allowed. </p>
<p>“What we learned at this event is that there is a disconnect between the industry and the fire services,” Lehan said. The two sides of the argument, fire departments and the alarm industry were approaching the matter from very different perspectives.</p>
<p>“On the private industry side, it’s the same position that we’ve always had: Allow us to compete for business. Let UL-listed central stations perform to NFPA code standards, and let the market choose service providers,” said Lehan.</p>
<p>Hauhn said the alarm industry’s argument “was incorrectly portrayed as an issue that usurped the authorities having jurisdiction. … No one at CSAA is going to denigrate the brave men and women that rush into a burning building.”</p>
<p>Fire services argued that central stations are unsafe, according to Lehan. “We have heard for a few years, and this was echoed at that [NFPA] meeting, anecdotal situations whereby the private alarm industry failed in dispatching. When we ask for specific situations when this has happened, we do not get a response," he said.</p>
<p>Lehan said a new forum for fire services and the alarm industry to communicate better had come up in discussions following the meeting, and that may be further developed in the future.</p>
<p>Hauhn explained the industry’s current position in the matter and CSAA’s plans for the future, “NFPA 72 is a 3-year cycle. So, we are beginning to create a strategy to address it again in the 2019 [edition of the code].” </p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Fire services trump alarm industry at NFPA vote" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:46:18 +0000Spencer Ives18453 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/fire-services-trump-alarm-industry-nfpa-vote#commentsFire services trump alarm industry on NFPA votehttp://securitysystemsnews.com/blog/fire-services-trump-alarm-industry-nfpa-vote
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:author dc:creator">Spencer Ives</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:created"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:created" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2015-07-01T00:00:00-04:00">07/01/2015</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>On June 25, in Chicago, the NFPA held its annual meeting,<a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/monitoring-companies-called-action-nfpa-meeting"> but the alarm industry was concerned about two motions on NFPA 72</a>, which would effectively give local municipalities the authority to disallow the use of listed central stations for fire alarm monitoring.</p>
<p>Ultimately, motion 72-8 passed with a vote of 142-80, giving municipalities that discretion. Motion 72-9, which would have removed the line referring to central stations completely, was withdrawn after 72-8 passed.</p>
<p>Kevin Lehan, executive director for the Illinois Electronic Security Associaiton, told <em>Security Systems News</em> that there were some beneficial aspects to the meeting for the alarm industry. “Previously the language said ‘alternate location approved by the authority having jurisdiction.’ Now the language specifically says ‘listed central supervising station.’” Lehan said that this specific mention will help central stations through being now a specific entity as opposed to the previously vague language.</p>
<p>“We were thrilled to be able to get the numbers out that we did.” Lehan said, pointing out that the vote, being on June 25, happened at the same time as ESX. “We mobilized very well, we just have to inform and entice the rest of the alarm installer community to be active in the NFPA going forward.”</p>
<p>“What we learned at this event is that there is a disconnect between the industry and the fire services,” Lehan said. The two sides of the argument, fire departments and the alarm industry were approaching the matter from very different perspectives.</p>
<p>“The fire services, their testimony came across as stating that central stations are unsafe. We have heard for a few years, and this was echoed at that [NFPA] meeting, anecdotal situations whereby the private alarm industry failed in dispatching [without more specific details on the alarm event]. When we ask for specific situations when this has happened, we do not get a response," he said.</p>
<p>“On the private industry side, it’s the same position that we’ve always had, allow us to compete for business. Let UL listed central stations perform to NFPA code standards, and let the market choose service providers,” said Lehan.</p>
<p>Lehan said that the idea of creating a forum for fire services and the alarm industry to communicate better had come up in discussions following the meeting, and that may be further developed in the future, Lehan said. </p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Fire services trump alarm industry on NFPA vote" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:03:26 +0000Spencer Ives18420 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/blog/fire-services-trump-alarm-industry-nfpa-vote#commentsADS, village settle lawsuithttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/ads-village-settle-lawsuit
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Private companies can now offer fire alarm monitoring services in Algonquin, Ill. after village agrees to end its monopoly of the service</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2014-05-07T00:00:00-04:00">05/07/2014</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>DES PLAINES, Ill.—The village of Algonquin recently agreed to settle a lawsuit in which Alarm Detection Systems accused the village of establishing an “illegal monopoly” on fire alarm monitoring.</p>
<p>“This is very good news,” Kevin Lehan, executive director of the Illinois Electronic Security Association, based here, told Security Systems News, regarding the April 17 court settlement. “It opens up the market for any alarm contractor to come and bid” the job for commercial fire alarm subscribers, he said.</p>
<p>According to news reports, more than 400 commercial businesses and multifamily units in the community that had been served by the village’s wireless network now have to find a private company that can monitor their fire alarms.</p>
<p>ADS, based in Aurora, Ill., filed the <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/ads-vs-village-lawsuit" target="_blank">federal lawsuit</a> late last year against the village and the Algonquin-Lake in the Hills Fire Protection District.</p>
<p>ADS said the village had established an “illegal monopoly” that shut out ADS and other private companies from providing fire monitoring to commercial customers there.</p>
<p>The lawsuit came after the village on Dec. 1 took over the wireless radio network fire alarm system previously owned and operated by the fire district. The fire district couldn’t operate the system any longer because of a <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/decision-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-significant-industry" target="_blank">U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision</a> last summer that said such public entities couldn’t be in the fire monitoring business. However, because the village itself is a municipality and not a fire district, it maintained the ruling did not apply to it. The village passed an ordinance requiring commercial businesses to contract only with the village for fire monitoring.</p>
<p>The village of Algonquin still believes it is legally correct but has decided not to pursue the matter in court, according to a statement provided by Kelly Cahill, attorney for the village, to Security Systems News.</p>
<p>“The village of Algonquin negotiated terms with ADS to end the litigation. While the village disagrees with the allegations made by ADS and feels it has clear statutory authority to require commercial properties to directly connect to the village wireless alarm monitoring system, it made a business decision not to litigate the issue,” the statement said.</p>
<p>But Lehan noted that in the settlement—in which the village agreed to rescind the ordinance mandating that commercial businesses connect with village’s network—the village and the fire district agreed to each pay ADS $25,000. And he said the industry feels “we’re on strong legal grounds” because of the Seventh Circuit court ruling.</p>
<p>Lehan said commercial businesses will benefit from the Algonquin market opening up, because it’s likely they will get better monthly deals from private companies than they did with the village, which charged a fixed alarm monitoring fee. “Basically it’s a brand new open market and when people compete for business you’re going to get a much better price point,” he said.</p>
<p>In another positive development for the industry in Illinois, <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/fire-monitoring-bill-raising-alarm-illinois" target="_blank">proposed state legislation</a> that would have given public fire districts sole control over fire alarm monitoring never made it out of committee, Lehan told SSN. He said in late April that he expected that the bill would die “a peaceful death.”</p>
<p>IESA and other business groups lobbied hard against the measure, which IESA described as a “job-killing, monopoly-creating measure,” crafted in reaction to the federal appeals court decision regarding fire monitoring.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="ADS, village settle lawsuit" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 07 May 2014 19:01:09 +0000Leif Kothe17451 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/ads-village-settle-lawsuit#commentsNew front in Illinois fire monitoring battlehttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/new-front-illinois-fire-monitoring-battle
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Proposed legislation would allow public fire districts back into monitoring business after a court ordered them out of it</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2014-02-26T00:00:00-05:00">02/26/2014</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>DES PLAINES, Ill.—Just as Illinois fire protection districts are shutting down their fire monitoring programs because of a federal court ruling saying such <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/fire-monitoring-illinois-trending-industry-s-favor" target="_blank">public entities aren’t authorized to be that business</a>, proposed new state legislation would grant the districts that authority.</p>
<p>The industry is fighting back, organizing private alarm companies to help defeat House Bill 5683. They say the bill would shut out them out of the commercial fire monitoring market. The industry contends fire districts and other public entities want to monopolize fire monitoring to boost revenue in public coffers.</p>
<p>Kevin Lehan, executive director of the Illinois Electronic Security Association (IESA), based here, told <em>Security Systems News</em> that a March 12 IESA meeting will focus on organizing the state’s licensed alarm contractors and discussing how they can educate “the state’s lawmakers on why this is a bad deal.”</p>
<p>Lehan said, “The intent of the bill appears to be a way to circumvent the Lisle-Woodridge ruling in federal court.”</p>
<p>ADT, Aurora, Ill.-based Alarm Detection Systems (ADS) and other private alarm companies in 2010 sued the Lisle-Woodridge Fire District, which had passed an ordinance mandating that commercial and multi-residential businesses must contract solely with the district for fire alarm monitoring.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/decision-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-significant-industry" target="_blank">July 2013 decision</a> by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit favored the alarm companies. The ruling upheld an earlier decision by federal Judge Milton Shadur that said, among other things, that such a governmental monopoly was illegal and that fire districts didn’t have the authority to be in the fire alarm monitoring business or charge customers fees for monitoring.</p>
<p>The proposed new state legislation would change that.</p>
<p>According to a bill summary, it would amend the Fire Protection District Act to allow districts to “adopt ordinances regulating the supervision and monitoring of fire alarm systems maintained within the district.” The bill also would allow districts “to collect reasonable fees for fire alarm services that are provided to customers by the district itself or through a vendor approved by the board.”</p>
<p>Furthermore, Lehan pointed out, the bill would exempt local government units from the state licensing requirements alarm companies must meet.</p>
<p>The Seventh Circuit court found that the Lisle-Woodridge fire district’s system was “less reliable and more dangerous than the private alarm companies’ systems” because it didn’t meet the NFPA standards central stations must comply with.</p>
<p>Lehan told SSN that the bill was introduced on Feb. 14, the last day for bills to be submitted for the legislative session. It uses such broad language that he believes it will be amended to include more specifics as it goes through the General Assembly.</p>
<p>“It was thrown into the Rules Committee; that’s its status at the moment,” Lehan told SSN on Feb. 21. “We’re just waiting to see how the language evolves, but regardless of how it evolves we will be calling on the entire industry to educate their local lawmakers.” He said alarm companies throughout the state should be concerned “because this isn’t just a Chicago-area problem. This can be put into place anywhere within the state of Illinois.”</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="New front in Illinois fire monitoring battle" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:14:09 +0000Leif Kothe17274 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/new-front-illinois-fire-monitoring-battle#commentsDecision in Illinois fire alarm monitoring case 'significant' for industryhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/decision-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-significant-industry
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">The ruling says public fire district monitoring services &#039;less safe&#039; than those offered by private market</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-08-07T00:00:00-04:00">08/07/2013</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.—A federal appeals court has upheld a previous court ruling favoring ADT and other alarm companies in a case involving public entities monopolizing fire alarm monitoring.</p>
<p>“It’s a very positive day for the industry,” Kevin Lehan, executive director of the Illinois Electronic Security Association (IESA), based here, told Security Systems News.</p>
<p>In a communication to IESA members, Lehan described the July 31 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as “a significant and positive step toward the goal of opening anti-competitive markets.”</p>
<p>The decision is the latest in the long-running lawsuit, which was filed after the Lisle-Woodridge Fire District adopted an ordinance in 2009 putting itself solely in charge of fire monitoring in the district.</p>
<p>ADT and four other companies—Alarm Detection Systems based in Aurora, Ill.; D.M.C. Security Services of Midlothian, Ill.; Illinois Alarm Services, based in Forest Park, Ill.; and SMG Security Systems, located in Elk Grove Village, Ill.—filed the lawsuit in 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois after the fire district invalidated contracts the companies had with commercial and multi-residential customers. The fire district required those customers to contract only with the district for fire alarm monitoring via a wireless radio network implemented by a private vendor with whom the district had contracted.</p>
<p>Last August, Judge Milton Shadur <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/ruling-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-positive-industry" target="_blank">issued a modified permanent injunction order</a> that said, among other findings, that the public Lisle-Woodridge Fire District had no authority to require private businesses to contract only with the district for fire alarm monitoring, and that it couldn’t ban the businesses from contracting with private central stations that meet approved codes and standards.</p>
<p>The district appealed to the Seventh Circuit, but the 50-page decision the court issued last week upheld the permanent injunction with only a few minor modifications.</p>
<p>The case is still not over because two other federal claims need to be resolved at trial, according to Bruce Goldsmith, an attorney for the four other alarm companies that joined ADT in the suit.</p>
<p>Jim French, public information officer for the fire district, did not return a request for comment by SSN’s deadline, but has previously said the district can’t discuss pending litigation. ADT also has said it does not discuss matters in litigation.</p>
<p>But Goldsmith called the appeals court decision “very good news for the industry.”</p>
<p>“It fully supports the position we took in the District Court, and actually [the Seventh Circuit] went to great lengths to look at the factual record that supported the judge’s finding and found his findings to be well supported by the record,” he told SSN. Goldsmith noted that the court “highlighted the facts they thought were particularly compelling and one of them comes really from the front page of the opinion, where they saw this as really being designed to gain revenue [on the part of the fire district] and it really wasn’t for any public safety reasons.”</p>
<p>The district had argued that having it be in control of monitoring was safer, but instead the court found the district’s system “less reliable and more dangerous than the private alarm companies’ systems.” The system did not comply with NFPA standards, but central stations are NFPA compliant, the court noted.</p>
<p>Goldsmith, an attorney with the Dykema law firm, which has an office in Lisle, Ill., said that still to come to trial in the case is the alarm companies’ allegation that the district violated their rights under the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution “because the district sent out notices to our customers saying their alarm contracts were null and void and they had to contract with the district.”</p>
<p>Also, he said, the alarm companies contend the district’s actions constitute “an illegal monopoly because municipalities and fire protection districts are not allowed to monopolize a business like fire alarm monitoring unless there’s an express grant of authority from the state which contemplates anti-competitive behavior.”</p>
<p>He said that municipalities traditionally have been the exclusive provider of services like garbage collection and sanitary sewer service, but he said they only have that right if a state statute gives the municipality the authority to monopolize those services. No such express state authority has been given for fire alarm monitoring, he said.</p>
<p>He said he hopes the case will go to trial on those issues soon. “I suspect we would be able to get it to trial by the end of the year,” Goldsmith said.</p>
<p>While this case applies to fire protection districts, those are only one form of governmental unit in Illinois, he said. There also are home-rule municipalities and non-home-rule municipalities, Goldsmith said.</p>
<p>While the industry maintains this case applies to them, not all municipalities agree so further litigation may be needed to make that clear, he said.</p>
<p>“The general principles apply across the board: none of them should be monopolizing and none of them should be interfering with contracts,” Goldsmith said, “but we have to go a little further to get the law clarified on those points.”</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Decision in Illinois fire alarm monitoring case &#039;significant&#039; for industry" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:16:10 +0000Leif Kothe16674 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/decision-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-significant-industry#commentsIESA to discuss video verificationhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/also-noted/iesa-discuss-video-verification
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even"><span class="date-display-single" property="dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2013-04-26T00:00:00-04:00">04/26/2013</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"> <p>ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.—Video verification will be the focal point of a May 15 meeting of the Illinois Electronic Security Association, according to a statement from the organization, based here.</p>
<p>The discussion will feature Keith Jentoft, liaison for the Partnership for Priority Video Alarm Response (PPVAR), which has made <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/videofied-makes-mainstream-move">a recent push</a> to bring video verification to the mainstream burglar alarm market, the statement said. Meeting attendees will be able to share their opinions and positions on this subject.</p>
<p>Video verification in recent months has become a hot topic, becoming a featured item at the Barnes Buchanan Conference, the ISO Executive Loss Control Forum, and at ISC West, according to the statement.</p>
<p>The PPVAR is advocating a new public/private partnership between alarm companies, insurance companies and law enforcement—the “stakeholders in the battle against property crime.” At the meeting, Jentoft will share case studies and provide resources to help alarm companies work with central stations to maximize video verification opportunities, and to gain a competitive edge over new entrants to the security market, the statement said.</p>
<p>For more information, visit: <a href="http://www.iesa.net">http://www.iesa.net</a>.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="IESA to discuss video verification" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:52:32 +0000Leif Kothe16345 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/also-noted/iesa-discuss-video-verification#commentsRuling in Illinois fire alarm monitoring case ‘positive’ for industryhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/ruling-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-positive-industry
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">But decision in lawsuit brought by ADT over public entities monopolizing fire alarm monitoring will be appealed</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-08-15T00:00:00-04:00">08/15/2012</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.—The latest decision in a lawsuit brought by ADT and other alarm companies over public entities taking over fire alarm monitoring in the state contains “a lot of positive things for the alarm industry,” according to the executive director of the Illinois Electronic Security Association (IESA).</p>
<p>“I would sum it up by saying that this was a great step forward for licensed alarm contractors in the state as well as the fire services,” Kevin Lehan told <em>Security Systems News</em>. “I know that they had been waiting for this ruling, as well as our industry has, and the ultimate winners are going to be the consumers.”</p>
<p>Among key provisions of the modified permanent injunction order issued in federal court last week by Judge Milton Shadur are ones that say the public Lisle-Woodridge Fire District can’t require private businesses to contract only with the district for fire alarm monitoring, and that it can’t ban the businesses from contracting with private central stations that meet approved codes and standards.</p>
<p>However, Lisle-Woodridge is seeking a stay on the injunction while it appeals it. The district argues the decision violates an earlier appeals court ruling and is overbroad.</p>
<p>The 32-page order is quite complex. In fact, at an IESA meeting on Sept. 13, the organization’s legal counsel is slated to hold an hourlong session to clarify the decision and its potential impact on the alarm industry. IESA, which is based here, is inviting members and non-members to attend.</p>
<p>But a crucial element of the Aug. 7 ruling in the case—in which ADT Security Services and other companies sued the Lisle-Woodridge Fire District after it adopted an ordinance in 2009 putting itself solely in charge of fire monitoring in the district—is a provision that says the “district shall cease and desist from any activities related to the fire alarm monitoring business as set out in the ordinance.”</p>
<p>The Illinois case has been watched by the alarm industry nationwide because it could carry implications for other states.</p>
<p>The Lisle-Woodridge Fire District said the reason it needed to control fire alarm monitoring was because that arrangement was safer. The industry <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/psap-problems-illinois-raise-safety-concerns" target="_blank">disputes that argument</a>, and contends that financially strapped public entities just want to displace private companies to collect monitoring fees for public coffers.</p>
<p>The lawsuit was brought after the fire district invalidated contracts that ADT and the other companies had with commercial and multi-residential customers, and required those customers to contract only with the district for fire alarm monitoring via a wireless radio network implemented by a private vendor with whom the district had contracted.</p>
<p>But the judge has now ruled that the district can’t require commercial entities to contract only with the district and can’t bar them from contracting with NFPA code-compliant central stations, such as UL-listed central stations. Also, the judge said, the district can’t charge any commercial entities for fire alarm monitoring services or any other fire protection services.</p>
<p>The fire district had appealed a permanent injunction issued last summer by Shadur. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year affirmed part of that injunction and reversed some of it. This modified permanent injunction by Shadur comes as the result of that <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/mixed-court-ruling-illinois-monitoring-case" target="_blank">appeals court decision</a>.</p>
<p>Sarah Cohn, director of media relations for ADT North America Residential/Small Business, told SSN, “As a matter of policy, we don’t discuss matters in litigation.”</p>
<p>The fire district has until Sept. 6 to appeal the latest decision, according to the IESA. Jim French, public information officer for the district, told SSN that he couldn’t comment because the district is “in the middle of federal litigation.” However, the district has filed court papers seeking a stay of the injunction, indicating it plans to appeal the case. The district argues that it is likely to win on appeal and says the injunction should be stayed "because it harms the public interest."</p>
<p>The industry believes otherwise. Lehan said the judge urged the parties in the suit to work with Lisle-Woodridge to minimize dispatch times, which Lehan said the industry stands ready to do.</p>
<p>“I think it’s time that public and private industry move forward together to further increase life safety for those in Lisle-Woodridge as well as everyone else throughout the state,” he said. “We can put in best practices that will minimize false alarms, minimize dispatch times and increase public safety, and that’s the goal of our industry.”</p>
<p>If the ruling stands, how will it impact other Illinois communities taking over fire alarm monitoring? “I can’t say for sure this ends the practice across the state,” Lehan said.</p>
<p>For one thing, some of those taking control of fire alarm monitoring are municipalities, which contend they have “home rule” authority under state law that fire protection districts lack. However, Lehan says the judge’s ruling would "give us legal precedence” in fighting cases of municipalities monopolizing fire alarm monitoring. And he praised the judge’s requirement that municipal monitoring facilities must meet NFPA 72 standards, which central stations have to comply with.</p>
<p>However, the district contends the judge erred in requiring it to adopt the latest version of NFPA, which currently is the 2010 version. The district says it has adopted the 2002 edition of NFPA, which it says still is valid.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Ruling in Illinois fire alarm monitoring case ‘positive’ for industry" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:55:27 +0000Tess Nacelewicz15605 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/ruling-illinois-fire-alarm-monitoring-case-positive-industry#commentsPSAP problems in Illinois raise safety concernshttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/psap-problems-illinois-raise-safety-concerns
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Industry group: Municipal monitoring not ‘inherently safer’ than central stations</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-07-25T00:00:00-04:00">07/25/2012</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.—A PSAP that controls emergency communications for numerous municipalities around Chicago is reportedly having such problems with delayed response times that dispatchers recently voted “no confidence” in the agency’s management.</p>
<p>The situation at Northwest Central Dispatch System serves as a good example of why cities and towns shouldn’t shut central stations out of the fire monitoring business if they want the public to be safe, according to the head of the Illinois Electronic Security Association. The IESA, based here, is actively battling an ongoing effort in the state by public fire districts and municipalities to monopolize fire alarm monitoring.</p>
<p>“The municipalities and government units that are choosing to go into municipal monitoring so often state—and that’s their main argument—that the reason they have to go into this is for public safety,” Kevin Lehan, executive director of the IESA, told <em>Security Systems News</em>.</p>
<p>However, he said, “PSAPs aren’t inherently safer than central stations ... Don’t cut the central station out of the loop—we are very much a part of the public safety process.” Lehan said central stations have “documented time and time again” that they are safe because of standards they have to meet to become UL listed and gain other approvals.</p>
<p>Northwest Central Dispatch provides emergency dispatch services for about 500,000 residents in Arlington Heights and 10 other nearby communities, and is looking into adding new members, according to the Daily Herald newspaper.</p>
<p>Lehan said the agency “has been pushing its municipal members to pass ordinances requiring commercial fire accounts to link to the PSAP [instead of using private central stations].”</p>
<p>But dispatchers have safety concerns about the PSAP, the Daily Herald reported last week. It said the union representing dispatchers for Northwest Central Dispatch “presented a vote of ‘no confidence’ in management at a board of directors meeting” on July 19.</p>
<p>The newspaper said the union has a number of ongoing concerns with the PSAP’s management. However, it said, the vote “stems from members' frustrations with a new computer-aided dispatch system installed April 24. The system, used for routing emergency calls to fire and police departments, has been plagued with problems affecting response times.” Earlier in July, the paper said, “software glitches caused a 14-minute delay in the response to a potential heart attack victim.”</p>
<p>According to the story, the chairman of Northwest Central’s board, Ray Rummel, told dispatchers the board retained confidence in management but would take their concerns under advisement.</p>
<p>Rummel is the manager of Elk Grove Village, one of the communities served by the PSAP.</p>
<p>Elk Grove Village earlier this year had been considering an ordinance that would have mandated that all new commercial businesses—and existing businesses replacing or doing significant upgrades to their fire alarm systems—have wireless fire alarm systems that would connect directly with Northwest Central Dispatch.</p>
<p>But after industry members filled a public hearing to express concerns about government stifling free competition in the fire monitoring market, Elk Grove Village’s board effectively <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/illinois-alarm-industry-helps-quash-onerous-proposals" target="_blank">scrapped the ordinance</a> on Jan. 24.</p>
<p>However, Lehan told SSN last week, he is concerned that Elk Grove has since been giving out marketing materials to commercial businesses saying “we recommend you connect [to Northwest Central Dispatch].”</p>
<p>Lehan at the public hearing had urged the village not to make such a recommendation because he said it discourages competition. When an AHJ “encourages you to go with a specific provider, there’s a certain pressure right there,” he said at the meeting.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="PSAP problems in Illinois raise safety concerns" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:37:56 +0000Tess Nacelewicz15564 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/psap-problems-illinois-raise-safety-concerns#comments Illinois alarm industry helps quash onerous proposalshttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/illinois-alarm-industry-helps-quash-onerous-proposals
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even"> Ordinances to get communities into the fire-alarm monitoring business fizzle after industry raises concerns</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2012-02-01T00:00:00-05:00">02/01/2012</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.—The security alarm industry scored two significant victories last week in an ongoing battle in this state over public entities monopolizing fire alarm monitoring, according to the head of the Illinois Electronic Security Association.</p>
<p>“It’s been a great week for the Illinois alarm industry,” Kevin Lehan, executive director of IESA, based here, told <em>Security Systems News</em>. He said that after the industry raised concerns about the government stifling free competition in the market, proposed fire-alarm monitoring ordinances in the communities of Elk Grove Village and Elgin were set aside.</p>
<p>Elk Grove Village on Jan. 24 agreed to scrap an ordinance which, when first proposed, would have mandated that all new commercial businesses—and existing businesses replacing or doing significant upgrades to their fire alarm systems—have wireless fire alarm systems that would connect directly with the village’s emergency communications provider, Northwest Central Dispatch.</p>
<p>And in the city of Elgin, a similar ordinance requiring businesses to connect to that city’s PSAP (public safety answering point) was tabled indefinitely on Jan. 25, Lehan said.</p>
<p>“My opinion is that as long as it’s on the table, it’s not doing harm to the industry. If it should ever come off the table, we’re going to be there to express our opinions,” Lehan said.</p>
<p>He praised both communities for heeding industry concerns, and said stakeholders now plan to talk to community officials about ways to provide them with the safest, most cost-effective fire monitoring solutions. “I think any time the free market is allowed to play out, that’s going to be a benefit for the [commercial] business owners as well as our industry,” he said.</p>
<p>The IESA has been in the forefront of the industry’s fight, ongoing for several years now, against public municipalities and fire districts taking sole control over fire alarm monitoring in this state. The public entities say that would be safer, but the industry denies that and says fire districts and towns just want the revenue from monitoring fees.</p>
<p>Five security companies, including ADT Security Services, have taken the Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District to court over the issue. That <a href="http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/mixed-court-ruling-illinois-monitoring-case" target="_blank">federal lawsui</a>t is pending. The case is being watched by the industry nationwide because it could have implications for other states.</p>
<p>In the proposed Elk Grove Village ordinance, ADT was to partner with Northwest Central Dispatch in providing the wireless service for $81 per month. The initial ordinance proposal said new businesses and existing ones replacing 50 percent or more of their fire alarm systems would be required to directly connect to the village’s mesh radio network.</p>
<p>But after security alarm companies and business owners protested to village officials about the mandate for what Lehan termed “a government-created monopoly,” the wording of the proposal changed before the Jan. 24 meeting of the Elk Grove Village board, according to a videotaped version of the meeting.</p>
<p>“You were told this is a mandated requirement,” Mayor Craig Johnson told a group of about 40 representatives from security companies and local commercial businesses who attended the meeting. But he said the mandate was mistakenly included in draft language, and that complying with the ordinance would be voluntary.</p>
<p>“We encourage businesses to use this technology but we don’t require them to use the technology,” Johnson said. “This board does not want government coming into my home or place of business and telling me what to do.”</p>
<p>But Lehan at the meeting asked the board not to adopt the ordinance even with the word “encourage,” saying that could discourage competition.</p>
<p>He said that when an AHJ (authority having jurisdiction) “encourages you to go with a specific provider, there’s a certain pressure right there.”</p>
<p>He instead urged village officials to work with industry stakeholders and “we can provide you with the highest level of service based on whatever parameters you would like.”</p>
<p>The board ended up not voting on the ordinance and agreeing the village would work with the industry, but did approve having the village itself switch to a wireless fire alarm system through ADT.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content=" Illinois alarm industry helps quash onerous proposals" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:20:36 +0000Tess Nacelewicz15199 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/illinois-alarm-industry-helps-quash-onerous-proposals#commentsCourts side with alarm industry in Illinoishttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/courts-side-alarm-industry-illinois
<div class="field field-name-field-subtitle field-type-text field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">Efforts by public entities to monopolize fire alarm monitoring suffer setbacks in recent rulings</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-pubdate field-type-datestamp field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:datePublished dc:date"><span class="date-display-single" property="schema:datePublished dc:date" datatype="xsd:dateTime" content="2011-10-04T00:00:00-04:00">10/04/2011</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-field-blogger field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" rel="schema:author dc:creator">Tess Nacelewicz</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden clearfix">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even" property="schema:articleBody content:encoded"> <p>ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill.—Two court decisions in late August bolstered the alarm industry’s position in an ongoing dispute in Illinois over public entities taking control of fire alarm monitoring away from private companies.<br />“This bodes well for the future,” Kevin Lehan, executive director of the Illinois Electronic Security Association (IESA), which is based here, said of the most recent judicial rulings.<br />The alarm industry had already won one round this summer, when a federal judge in July issued a partial summary judgment and a permanent injunction against the Lisle-Woodridge fire district. That public fire district had invalidated contracts that ADT and other companies had with their customers and put itself solely in charge of commercial fire alarm monitoring in that Illinois fire district. ADT and the other companies sued the district last year in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and the case is making its way through the courts.<br />Judge Milton Shadur in his July 20 ruling slapped down the fire district, saying state law did not give public fire districts any legal right to be in the fire alarm monitoring business.<br />But the fire district, which maintains it needs to take control of fire alarm monitoring for safety reasons, then asked the judge to stay the injunction, which essentially reinstated the alarm companies’ right to resume fire alarm monitoring in the district. However, the judge denied that motion Aug. 23 and took the fire district even more strongly to task.<br />“This case involves an act of illegal self-aggrandizement by a fire protection district,” the judge wrote in his decision. He also said the district had violated “fundamental principles” by “trampling on the rights of companies going about their legitimate business of providing alarm security services.”<br />The fire district appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. But on Aug. 31, that court denied the motion to stay the permanent injunction.<br />Lehan called that decision at the appeals level, a “great feather in the cap” for the industry.<br />Lehan also noted Judge Shadur’s “rather devastating language to the district about the merits of their claim.”<br />He said that “one of my favorites” was this statement by the judge: “And District's claimed bugaboo of endangering the health and safety of the alarm monitoring systems customers glossed over—or more accurately ignores entirely—the record's silence as to any such risks during the years that the independent alarm companies have been providing their services to customers within the fire protection district.”<br />Lehan said, “Basically he’s saying that that public safety argument that you’ve been telling everyone … there’s no history of it.”<br />IESA has not only been monitoring this court battle, but has worked over the past year to fight legislation that would have enabled public entities to monopolize the fire alarm monitoring business in the state, and also is working to combat efforts by other communities to take over fire monitoring.<br />Lehan said IESA is “plowing the ground for the rest of the country,” because he contends that if the public entities succeed in their efforts in Illinois it will spread to other states.<br />He said that in recognition of IESA’s efforts the national Electronic Security Association signed up as the sponsor of an IESA’s membership meeting Sept. 14. State Rep. Robert Rita was listed as the keynote speaker to address industry licensure issues.</p> </div>
</div>
</div>
<span property="dc:title" content="Courts side with alarm industry in Illinois" class="rdf-meta element-hidden"></span>Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:19:44 +0000SSN Editor14984 at http://securitysystemsnews.comhttp://securitysystemsnews.com/article/courts-side-alarm-industry-illinois#comments